Okay, good evening everyone. Welcome to
the regular council meeting for Tuesday,
July 21st. It's currently 7:00. Before
we get started,
the Village of Anmore would like to open
our meeting by recognizing the many
indigenous peoples of our area,
including the following First Nations
with communities that are now located in
the region that we know as Metro
Vancouver.
It'll be the Musqueam, Squamish,
Tsleil-Waututh, and Kwikwetlem.
Further, we'd like to honor the
important place in history occupied by
the many tutorial keepers of these lands
and waters around us since time
immemorial.
I'll call the meeting to order. Could I
get someone to move the agenda as
circulated?
>> Second.
>> Call the question. All those in favor?
Carried unanimously. Uh
we have public input. Uh
public is to uh come forward and ask any
questions regarding to business that's
on the agenda. Uh
Agenda items only. 2-minute time limit
applies to speakers. Anybody wishing to
come forward and discuss anything on
tonight's agenda?
Nope.
Okay.
Move on to uh delegations. We have a
delegation from Lina Aziz to present
regarding Lower Fraser Valley Flood
Plains Coalition, a regional request.
I'm going to
I I'm just going to ask Did Did you want
to come to public input comment on
anything at public input?
Okay, I'm just going to if we can just
put you on hold, sir.
Please come up and state your name and
address.
» Zane Erickson, 2000 Rich Mountain Drive.
I'm just um
just wanted to bring up something about
the proposed changes to the
>> Could you pull the mic up a little?
Yeah.
There you go. Perfect.
>> Just the changes to the zoning bylaw,
and I'm just looking for more
specificity
in what's written.
Specifically regarding
basements
and
I found a little bit
vague where it was described that
um they're wanting to limit it to a
partially exposed.
I didn't see a definition
of what partially exposed means.
And I think by reading it that I find
the intention that limiting the height
to 2.75 m from the basement floor to the
main floor
is what would be the guiding definition
of partially exposed.
And I'm just concerned that in Ann Arbor
uh if we reduce
basement ceiling heights to 8 ft
uh with large spans, with the way that
houses are designed in Ann Arbor
we're going to have people with
you know, 7-ft ceiling heights in
basements if you need to do large spans
with floor trusses like we do so we can
run all their ducts and what not through
there. And so I
I'm just concerned that
these changes that are being made are
maybe academic more than um real-world
examples happening in the village. And
so I think some of that just needs to be
looked at a little bit more.
>> Good. Thank you very much.
>> Yeah.
>> Any other public comments before I vote?
Sorry. We'll get back to our delegation
now, Ms. Lena Aziz. Thank you. And thank
you for your patience.
>> I just think we're just
putting out
like that
you know, our website and a little bit
of teaching a little bit about it.
Sure.
» And please feel Yeah, feel free to
change that. Move that. Yeah.
» Uh good evening, Mayor Kumpel. My name
is Lina Lee. I'm the Watershed Programs
Director at Watershed Watch Society, a
conservation charity based in Fort
Langley,
BC. Our work goes where salmon goes and
where problems lie.
>> Today
>> Sorry.
» Okay. Is this all right?
>> Yes, it's fine.
>> All right. Today, I'm speaking as a
member of the Lower Fraser Floodplain
Coalition. The coalition is a group of
organizations, experts, and advocates
working toward integrated,
fish-friendly, and climate-resilient
floodplain management across the Lower
Mainland.
Our vision is simple.
That the people and the non-human
relatives of the Lower Mainland are
healthy, safe, and resilient to
flooding.
I'm here with a request that the Village
of Anmore join other communities in
becoming a signatory to the Regional
Joint Statement on Action for Floodplain
Resilience in the Lower Mainland.
Since uh 2022, we've been convening
local governments and First Nation
leaders and experts from across the
region to build the relationships, the
knowledge foundation, and momentum
needed to ready our region for flood
resilience.
Over the seven dialogues we've hosted,
themes around coordinated action,
regional action, sustained funding
sources, and advocacy to the feds and
the province keep coming to the surface.
Those seven uh meetings are represented
by the seven reports we have on the
slide there.
Uh something else that's emerged from
the regional discussion is that it's
time for multi-benefit flood management
in the Lower Mainland. We are stuck with
the approach to flood control
infrastructure that was developed rather
hastily in 1948-49,
and that combined with provincial
downloading of flood management to local
governments leaves us confined to
piecemeal approaches,
but it doesn't have to be that way.
Across the border in Washington state,
there's a program called Floodplains by
Design. The state the the state of
Washington has invested five $359
million
in large-scale multi-benefit projects
that have reduced flood risk for 88
communities, restored over 275 km of
salmon habitat,
supported local farms and boosted
regional economies since 2013.
These investments have already saved
nearly $2 million in avoided flood
damages. Beyond safety and habitat
gains, the program is a powerful
economic driver. Every million dollars
um
invested generates 2.2 to 2.5 million in
economic local economic activity, with
about 80% of that money staying in the
community. The program has leveraged has
leveraged funding for local from local
and federal partners at a 3:2:1 ratio,
creating thousands of jobs statewide.
We have been um learning from and being
mentored through that program over the
past few years, and we want to create an
investment of that kind for British for
the the Lower Mainland.
But despite all the goodwill
demonstrated in the region and the good
ideas that are out there, we have to
acknowledge that we are in a crisis
situation.
Flood risks are escalating. In the Lower
Mainland alone, we have lived through
major flooding in '21,
'24, '25, and a bit also this year in
the spring of 2026.
Aging infrastructure, development on
flood plains, and a changing climate are
all converging.
>> [snorts]
>> Uh I should note, of course, the BC
flood strategy does exist. It's been
around since 2024, [snorts] but there's
zero funding to actually implement that
strategy.
Flood resilience is not discretionary
spending. It is prudent financial
management. Every time we kick the can
down the road, we are gambling with the
lives, the homes, food security,
infrastructure, and ecosystems in the
Lower Mainland.
In fact, a single major flood in the in
the region could wipe out over $350
billion in economic value.
The Close to Home report by the Canadian
Climate Institute makes clear that BC
will be the province hit hardest by
escalating flood and wildfire-related
disaster costs. And yet we continue to
build in high-risk zones, locking in
future losses.
Of note, I just want to say there has
been no significant federal or
provincial investments in flood safety
in our region since the Fraser River
Flood Control Program ended in 1995.
But opportunities do exist.
The federal government has a clear
interest in a resilient Lower Fraser, as
mentioned in recent announcements. It's
an opportunity to channel investments
that deliver regional solutions that
work with nature and the economy.
It's worth noting, also, that the $150
to $164 million awarded through DMAF to
the region
has been scattered amongst individual
projects, not a coordinated regional
program,
which has made which unfortunately has
not made our region flood resilient.
A real investment program means
sequencing the right tools in the right
order, building local capacity,
funding applied funding applied
research, creating jobs, and
prioritizing the most vulnerable
communities first.
Which all of that brings me to the joint
statement that I'm here about today. The
aim is to express a unified regional
voice across local governments and First
Nations and support advocacy to federal
and provincial governments for stable,
long-term investment in flood resilience
that protects people, communities, and
ecosystems from
flood risk. And this is not just
riverine, we're also talking about
overland flooding and things like
atmospheric rivers.
It is an opportunity for the city as as
for the village
as leaders to send a clear message to
Ottawa and Victoria, letting them know
that we are ready to work together as a
region to build flood resilience for our
communities. We know what we need, and
federal and provincial governments must
step up to protect this region of
national significance with a program
that reflects the magnitude of the task
at hand.
To that end, we are calling
the joint statement calls for a
dedicated long-term flood resilience
program for the region, stable committed
funding, not project by project funding,
regional coordination, investment in
critical infrastructure, and the full
flood risk reduction toolbox, including
nature-based solutions, and capacity
support for First Nations and local
government leadership
to move this work forward.
So, on May 29th, the Metro Vancouver
Regional District's board endorsed this
joint statement, and since then we have
been doing delegations to two
municipalities across the region. So
far, we have got endorsement from Metro
Vancouver and the SLRD, the
Squamish-Lillooet Regional District. We
are
seeking endorsement from the FVRD later
this month. City-wise, Port Coquitlam,
the City of Coquitlam, City of Delta,
Township of Langley, and the City of
Langley have all signed on. We're in
process with the City of Vancouver,
Maple Ridge, and City of Surrey as we
speak. And we have um
more coming up
after the after the August break.
So,
to summarize then,
I should turn my sheet over.
Essentially, this the statement is
calling on the provincial and federal
governments to recognize that
collaboration, not competition for
piecemeal funding, is the foundation of
for resilience in the Lower Fraser, and
that enabling First Nations and local
governments to work together to meet
responsibilities to their communities
that flow from rights, titles, and
jurisdiction is part of that foundation.
And we're calling on the federal and
provincial governments to develop a
sustained long-term investment program
for the Lower Fraser adequate to support
collaborative work across for federal,
provincial, and local governments, First
Nations, and the private sector to
achieve regional flood plain resilience
that works with nature, not against it.
This work is bigger than one community,
and we're hence we're um trying to bring
everyone together so we can work
together.
Thank you.
» Good. Thank you. Um
with my role on Metro Vancouver, we we
did endorse this, and we've really had a
challenge because there is
the provincial government and federal
governments are not putting any funding
towards this very significant issue that
is facing uh a lot of our
municipalities. I especially feel for
like a municipality like Pitt Meadows of
very small size just doesn't have the
funding to be able to do this, and no
money coming from the province or the
federal governments to be able to to do
a lot of these things. And I know it at
Metro Vancouver, we also had the the
Fraser Valley
uh flood plains task force that we have
there, and we we are have a real
challenge with it as well to maintain
funding for that. So, anyway, I really
support uh
your what you're what you're doing and
getting and us all advocating for the
same thing and and helping out. We but
it also I think includes dredging as
well because a lot of the uh areas of
the lower Fraser need to be dredged
because they're now the siltation that's
come down over the years, and and the
federal government, which is their
responsibility, is not participating in
that at all. So, I'll just open up if
anybody has any other further questions,
but just wanted to thank you again for
coming and for your presentation and the
work that you're doing.
Any other comments?
Councilor Richardson.
>> So, I I went to your website to try and
understand. Like, I understand it's a
group of people coming together to try
and raise awareness,
but I didn't read any
examples. This is what we'd like to do.
And in your presentation, you even said,
"We're building on flood plains and
putting people at risk."
Where? How many? Which municipalities?
Cuz it seems to me
it would be the responsibility of the
municipalities not to do that, not the
provincial government or the federal
government
to restrict municipalities from where
they want to build. So, I was a bit
confused
sort of how it would work, where the
money would go, and what it would do.
>> Yeah. Um actually right now, I think
it's bill 44, provincial bill 44, where
um the province is kind of directing
local governments in one way to build in
order to densify communities, which um
in some communities are they're
considering more development and more
denser development in the flood plains.
Burnaby is one.
PoCo is another.
Um
so, that's kind of
what I mean by we're building more in
the flood plain, and perhaps not to
certain flood standards that um
have to be updated still, especially for
the local communities having to update
their flood standards. The The second
part of What was the What was the second
part of the question?
>> I was kind of looking for a specific
examples of where the money would go,
what it would do. Like
are they looking to have the federal
government come in, and your numbers
were huge, raise all dikes on the Fraser
Valley,
you know, 5 ft?
Like I I was a bit
confused like even work with nature.
Like if you work with nature, the river
just flows.
So, our point actually is in some ways
is to not work with nature.
We want to control it and force it into
particular channels and paths.
>> So, that's what's happened before, Ian.
>> So,
I I didn't quite understand what the
overall goal is.
>> Yeah, well,
there are many different steps before we
actually start breaking ground and, you
know, doing any of the flood resilience
projects we'd like to see happen. Um
right now, we have funding from NRCan,
Natural Resources Canada, to do research
on critical infrastructure. So, we're
starting to identify where are the
critical infra-
infrastructure at the moment? So,
railways, roads, focusing on those,
their their their flood risk weaknesses.
So, that work current studies currently
being conducted through UBC School of
Engineering.
And we would love to have more
communities on board and participating
in that study so that their critical
infrastructure in the communities are
getting
studied and addressed.
So, that's one thing that's happening.
More There is more
need
There is further need for actually doing
more applied research cuz we actually
don't know
where all of the high-risk flood areas
are in the Lower Mainland.
It shifts. Right now, everyone's
focusing on the Sumas Prairie for
obviously good reasons. But, this past
March, we had a slide at the top end of
the Coquitlam River. Well, that's an
area perhaps of high risk as well. So,
there are so many different areas of
high risk within our communities that we
haven't fully identified yet. So, that
has to be done.
We talk about using the flood risk toolkit, and that is
everything from gray infrastructure like
dikes, pump stations,
you know, channeling things, all the way
to green gray solutions like greener
dikes,
using berms for example, or creating
constructed wetlands. So, those are more
nature-based solutions, constructed
wetlands to hold more water and allow it
to flow more slowly because as we are
developing and have developed in our
floodplains and our slopes, we have
taken away the capacity of forests and
wetlands to do what they need to do. We
have lost 80
82%
or so of the wetlands in the Lower
Mainland. So, therefore, we've lost the
to capacity of to hold water in the
region.
>> So.
>> yes.
>> Yeah, I just wanted to kind of wrap this
up. Basically, in essence, you're an
advocacy group for all the
municipalities and different um
uh bands up along the the Fraser River,
which which is something that you're
looking to coordinate a
kind of a central
um request to both levels of government
and work as a as a as a as a unit rather
than what happens right now, which is a
lot of municipalities, i.e. the
Richmonds and that have their own flood
plans, but they're not in conjunction
with other neighboring municipalities
like Delta and such like that. So,
really, I think the the essence of of
the ask is just to uh sign on with the
other municipalities as to this regional
body
kind of speaking for all of us and
getting the required funding that we
need to get from the senior levels of
government. Is that
>> Yeah. Yeah, we do advocacy. We also do
convening. We bring local governments
and First Nation leadership together. We
do this at the regional scale, so Hope
to the Salish Sea up to, you know, the
Squamish Lil'wat Regional District. Um
but we also do this subregionally at
smaller groups, so we can we can talk
about things at different levels based
on what's needed. So, we do we do the
advocacy. We do the convening, bringing
together people, and we're creating a
knowledge hub. We're creating the shared
knowledge uh space for communities to
access. So, we are not we are not the
ones who would
In essence, we should not be the ones as
uh we're not leadership, right? We're
kind of behind the scenes, but we want
to support and encourage leadership to
have have um
uh the words and the knowledge to then
go forward and speak to the province and
the feds and bring this investment to
the region.
>> Thank you.
Is this something you have a resolution
for us or something we can
move to endorse?
>> Perhaps if council desires um
uh a resolution can be um that the uh
council uh supports the request uh of
the delegation. Something as simple as
that, perhaps.
>> Would that be Would the Village of
Anmore Council support the
movement of the I forget what exactly
the name is.
>> statement.
>> The the Lower Mainland Lower Fraser
Flood Land Coalition.
>> Um yeah, yeah. The exact name of the
statement is I believe you have it as
well. Yeah, and if you wanted to see the
wording, it is on my slide deck as well.
>> We can We'll word smith. So, I'll call
the question and
Do I have someone to move that
resolution?
To endorse the flood lands. Okay,
Counselor Krygier.
>> So, are we requesting to send a letter
of support or
>> I did
>> I Is it a
>> What is the actual action? That's what
I'm a little confused about.
>> we've been what we've been receiving
from other local governments is a very
brief letter showing reflecting support
for the joint statement, as well as a
logo that we can then put up on our
presentation and on our website.
So, that's that's the basic ask.
>> Okay.
>> And then, of course, as we're moving
forward, if there's interest in being
part of our convenings and being part of
any advocacy that does happen at the at
the high upper levels of government,
being invited to participate in that as
well.
>> Okay.
So, could I get someone Does somebody
want to move that motion to submit a
letter? Moved.
Anybody want to second? I see Paul's
going to second it.
Okay, any further discussion?
Councilor Richardson.
>> Yes, I kind of mentioned earlier, like I couldn't really understand who you
were, how you were funded. You said you
were a non-profit.
And I I
didn't quite understand your role.
And in order to send a letter saying I
support you, I kind of have to know
more.
>> Okay.
>> So, I I can try and find out offline,
but I couldn't find it before. So, maybe
we can have a conversation or something.
>> I'm happy to chat. But, very quickly, we
are really just like a a of different
organizations who are who think the
region needs to be organized in a in a
better way. We don't have a regional
flood plan.
Um and we're at risk because of that on
many different levels. Environmentally,
but also economically, our community is
at risk. So, for all of those reasons, a
number of organizations came together.
If you go to our website, you will see
who we are on there. We're uh like
researchers, engineers, uh environmental
organizations, um
a legal like West Coast Environmental
Law Society, they provide legal legal
advice. Um
uh Farm We also have uh Farmland
Advantage, so we have like a
agricultural um
part
members part of our coalition.
So, we
>> question from Councillor Craig. Are you
a registered Well, you're not a charity,
but are you a an organization, a
society?
>> coalition. So, a coalition of different
organizations who are like Watershed
Watch, who I work for, is a registered
charity.
Um the the First Nations led emergency
planning uh secretariat is um is a What
are they? They're a nonprofit, they're
not a registered charity, but they're
First Nations led and our work is very
much based in and supported by what they
do. So, all of the different um
organizations that are part that are in
the coalition, um we we are like we have
our own charters and mandates and all of
that, but we come together for this
cause
and try
to bring the region together.
>> Okay.
>> I think that's the coalition.
>> So, you don't have a
Do you have a budget? Do you have Is
everyone paid by their organization that
represents? Sorry for these questions,
but
>> no, totally, it's fine. Um
So, yeah, so we I can speak for myself.
I do have a budget that pays for my time
that I apply for grants. Um like to
foundations, and that's at Watershed
Watch Salmon Society, but the coalition
to help with some of our studies I
mentioned ENR We have $1.8 million from
NRCan. We recently were awarded some
money through the through the Ministry
of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship
as well as the Ministry of Agriculture
because they want us to continue our
engagement with between farmers and
First Nations in the Valley. So, that's
some other work that we're doing. Um so,
you know,
little pots of money here and there to
help
us do our work.
>> Thank you.
Okay, I'll call the question. All those
it's been moved and seconded. All those
in favor?
Opposed? I don't even see Oh,
uh motion's carried. Thank you. Thank
you very much for coming out and
presenting.
Okay, uh we have the minutes of the
regular council meeting held on July
7th, 2026. Recommendation that those uh
minutes be adopted as circulated. Could
I get someone to move that? Move,
second. Any discussion on those minutes?
See none. All those in favor?
Opposed?
Carried. Any business arising from the
minutes?
No? Okay. We have a consent agenda. Um
we only have one item on the consent
agenda, the Orphan Dyke advocacy letter
to the province.
Uh
Who uh who should I go to about
explaining this?
Ms. Elder?
>> I It is just for a receipt.
>> Oh, it's just for a receipt. Okay.
Someone to to move receipt.
Move, second. Any discussion?
See none. All those in favor?
Opposed? Carried. I didn't ask you.
Okay. We're on to uh
legislative reports 9A OCP bylaw
amendment 722-2025
infield development first and second
reading report dated July 17th, 2026
from Manager of Development Services
attached.
Mr. Joseph.
>> Uh excuse me before we begin, I will
recuse myself.
>> Okay.
>> We'll be We'll be doing infill,
hopefully, in the future.
>> Okay. Mr. Joseph.
» Okay, thank you, Mayor and Council. If
you can put the mic a little closer.
So, this report is to present updated
draft of the official community plan
amendment bylaw number 722-2025,
which proposes updates to OCP policy RLU
16, along with corresponding amendments
to the infill policy number 61 for
Council's consideration of first and
second reading, and to seek direction on
referring this amendment to external
agencies as required under section 475
and 476 of the Local Government Act.
So, back at the May 20th, uh, 2025
meeting, Council directed staff to
propose amendments to OCP policy RLU 16.
Staff returned in September 2026 with
proposed amendments, and Council passed
a resolution directing staff to prepare
changes to both the infill policy, as
well, uh, RLU 16 and the infill policy.
At the May 19th meeting, Council
directed that the amendments be deferred
as it was identified that the proposed
new minimum lot size provision for
double fronting parcels would permit a
density greater than that what was
allowed under the most recent OCP
updates.
So, staff have further revised the draft
amendment bylaw and infill policy number
61 for Council consideration based on
this feedback, and have since removed
the density specific provision for
double fronting parcels altogether.
The previous inclusion for parcels
between 2800 and 3924 square meters to
be eligible for infill, where the parcel
double fronts onto two separate public
highways, would have equated to a
density of a of around 8.67 units per
acre, which exceeds the OCP, uh, policy
RLU 17 associated with recent OCP
amendments that have been established
that has established a maximum density
of six units per acre for infill lots.
Uh so, the standard minimum lot size
range of roughly 1 to 2 acres uh
and the current maximum density of 2.04
parcels per acre per acre will continue
to be to apply to all infill parcels,
including those for double frontage. So,
staff recommend that any further review
of infill density uh be considered as
part of a future OCP update.
The amendment also proposes to remove
number three of RLU 16 for the
requirement that the entire parcel have
an average slope of 20% or less. While
keeping a number four of the policy for
the requirement that the building site
have an average grade of 20% or less.
This gives more flexibility for lots
with varied topography while maintaining
control of the siting that keeps
development uh off steep slopes. It's
also worth noting that the steep slopes
development permit area adopted through
the recent OCP amendments still applies
to lots with an overall average grade of
20% and will require a development
permit and geotechnical assessments
where needed.
The amendment also provides additional
flexibility on frontage requirements
described in RLU 16 number six. So,
panhandle lots and lots using an access
easement are treated as comparable
scenarios, both requiring similar
standards for emergency access.
The previous draft amendment had a 50-m
frontage requirement for panhandle lots
and this has since been revised down to
25 m matching what's proposed for the
lots utilizing an access easement
alternative.
In regards to updates to infill policy
number 61 section two requires that the access
strip of a panhandle not be included in
the calculation of the minimum lot size.
Section four of the policy exempts
panhandle lots and lots utilizing access
easements uh from a 25-m frontage
requirement, but but requires that the
parcel width and depth be at least 25 m
in length to maintain green space
between homes as illustrated in figure
three and four of the policy as attached
to the report, matching the intent of
the 25-m uh road frontage requirement.
Staff have also consulted with the
assessment Volunteer Fire Department on
emergency access requirements for these
lot configurations, which have informed
section 5 of the info policy number 61,
which requires panhandle lots and lots
using an access easement to meet a set
of criteria that will be enforced uh
through covenants on title.
These include a minimum of seven 7.5 m
access strip for panhandle lots, a
minimum 6 m wide paved access for
panhandle lots and access alternatives, use existing
driveways where feasible, maximum of 12%
driveway grades or access grades,
uh adequate overhead clearance for fire
apparatus where an arborist report and
tree management plan may be required at
rezoning,
clear and visible address signage from
the highway, safe and accessible
emergency entry at all times, and only
one parcel that may be created uh
utilizing an access by easement.
So, a council approval of a waiver
permitting subdivision where the
frontage is less than 10% of the parcel
perimeter uh will be required uh when
warranted for these lots. And also
referral to the fire chief may occur at
any stage in the info process.
Finally, amendments to section 8 of the
policy proposes to update the list of
desirable community amenities since the
community hub is now complete and
upgrades to the Spirit Park are
underway, staff have replaced the
municipal hall with park enhancements
and park acquisition as an active CAC
priority.
Staff has not proposed a change to the
actual CAC target value at this time,
though council may direct staff to
commission a new land lift study or
adjust in the current figure based on
CPI indexing as recommended by the
previous report, uh which would bring it
to approximately $189,633.
So, if council wants to pursue this uh
either um
two options, uh direction can be given
tonight along with uh the other
recommendations.
Local Government Act requires a
consultation with potentially affected
agencies before public hearing, so staff
recommend referral to the Miss Palaces
Belcarra, Port Moody, School District
number 43, and the Musqueam, Squamish,
Tsleil-Waututh, and Kwikwetlem First
Nations with all responses brought back
to council as part of a public hearing
package.
Would you like me to read the
recommendation?
>> Sure.
>> So the recommendation is that Village of
Bel Air Official Community Plan Bylaw
Amendment number 722-2025
be given first and second reading and
that Bel Air Official Community Plan
Amendment Bylaw number 722-2025
be referred to the following committees
as it relates to the mandate of each
committee.
And that in relation to Village of Bel
Air Official Community Plan Amendment
Bylaw number 722-2025
amendments associated with the proposed
updates to policy RLU 16 and full
development council will provide the
following additional opportunities it
considers appropriate for consultation
with persons, organizations, or
authorities it considers
will be affected including the
municipalities of Village of Bel Air and
the City of Port Moody, School District
number 43, and the Musqueam, Squamish,
Tsleil-Waututh, and Kwikwetlem First
Nations. And that all information
resulting from the Section 475 and 476
referral
and received by the Village will be
brought forward to a council as part of
a public hearing package and that a
public hearing be scheduled following
the referral process. Thank you.
>> Good. Can I get someone to move that?
Move seconded. Seconded. I'll open up
for discussion.
Councilor Richardson.
Okay. So,
when I
read through this,
we just did an OCP amendment. We're now
doing another one and I'm
worried we're bumping into an election
and maybe it's not the right thing to
do. So, if you just kind of
qualify times. If this is passed, when
would the public hearing be?
» I think the next council meeting is in
September.
I think in the 20-something, 22nd.
Should be a sufficient time for a
referral process to take place as well
as to schedule a public hearing. So,
that would be probably when the public
hearing would take place.
>> Okay. And then after that, it would be
third reading.
>> At the same meeting, potentially the
>> But then you have to do a fourth
reading.
>> Correct. October.
>> Which would
>> Or
Oh, third and adopt because of it's OCP.
So, you could potentially do the
adoption at
third reading as well. So, September
meeting.
>> Third and fourth.
Okay, cuz it's banging into the election
and I'm
for some reason it it's I'm a bit leery
on it. With that said,
um
I'm good with like the pan handles. I'm
good on the 20%, you know, for the
building area only.
Um
good on the size of the double roaded
lots.
I'm I'm struggling with the manifestations and maneuvering to
allow the you know, 0.89 or the 8.9
versus the six in the OCP.
And I was wondering if that cannot be
done or held done better in zoning.
So, like right now we say all lots 1/3
of an acre can have a carriage house a
suite and a building.
But we could change that if you're a
double side infill, you don't get that.
And then it cleans it up a little bit
and this becomes more about enabling and
less about massaging the OCP. And I
don't know if that's possible or not,
but my I'm leaning more that direction.
>> Yeah, so to the chair, I think that
you're running up against one other
issue and that's the 2.0
uh for uh
lots per acre. Um so, that I guess for
the double frontage purposes, you could
have two lots uh sort of uh there, but
we've since removed that um
sort of uh section for the RLU 16 policy
under previous direction um
because it it just exceeds the dense the
current density of the OCP. So, you
could potentially include it an
additional zoning bylaw or a zone for
the specific lots
where you wouldn't allow for um let's
say all all three of the units per lot.
So then maybe if it's two, then you
would still be in line with the OCP that
was currently passed.
>> Cuz that's my concern. How much of this
is to enable
uh more flexible infill
and how much of this is to change the
current OCP to allow the potential exit
extra density on like a 0.8 acre lot
that's divided into with three units on
each side?
>> Yeah, so through the chair, for tonight,
the current bylaw that's in front of you
for consideration does not consider
additional density at all. That's since
been striked out since the last meeting.
So the double frontage lot is not under
consideration at this time.
>> Okay.
So then I'm
confused.
Cuz I read a whole bunch of this stuff
is about
adjusting the 0.6 the six units per acre
density in the OCP to allow something
more. Am I Did I misread that?
>> Yeah, no, through the chair, this was it
was just a clarification segment. Yeah.
>> Okay, and then my last question is it an issue at all? Like say we boot
it down the path to the next council,
are there like 10 people lined up that
say, "I want this today?" Do we have
anybody or can it be left until like
we're going to redo the OCP in the next
term is my understanding. So can it be
wait till then?
>> Yeah, I mean, we have had active
interest numerous active interest in in
sort of these type of configurations.
Uh we do have one active application in
regards to 20% average slope. However,
you know, those considerations uh
they also have to conform to the active
policy and of course the option to defer
it to it all OCP update is is always a
possibility.
>> Okay.
Couple of uh questions I have for you.
Um
you know, uh
again, when I struck the task force back
in 2018, I've done infill. That's why
I've no longer recused myself. I'm
beyond that. Um
you know, infill was to provide gentle
densification,
no new infrastructure,
not on a steep slope, and it was to
retain the semi
semi-rural feel of the village. Very, specific. And I think um
the uh
councillors uh
Webber and uh
and Trolbridge actually did a really
good job was they set up a group and and
met several times and and discussed
this. I've had a couple people who
couldn't be here tonight, but are pretty
concerned about these new changes, and
the one being the panhandle.
They said, "Are you aware that most of
the panhandles are strata roads? And so,
what you're doing is you're literally
putting a neighbor against other
neighbors on the strata road to allow
them access to that to that panhandle."
Number two is will this also allow lots
that are very deep allow them to put a
panhandle in to be able to to develop
the rear of the property, which again is
going to take away from the semi-rural
feel that the initial infill was was
proposed to do. So, I am not in favor of
this at all because I think it opens up
Pandora's Box and to creativity that
could be had with people putting
panhandles. And then I know I think it
was in the mid mid-2015, 2016, um we
actually had a moratorium about adding
panhandles, and I think this will
actually add panhandles. So, I do have
some concern people are not pleased
about this about the about the ability
of using panhandles to facilitate their
frontage, um
because they're using a panhandle to
access their property right now, and
they're strata, and so there's a big
legal concern about that that I don't
know has been taken into consideration
in this aspect. And then
>> Oh, sorry. Go on.
>> Yeah, and then furthermore, you know,
they when we when we did the initial, we
I think there was a lot of parameters
that were established out of IE the
Ravenswood neighborhood with the 25 m
and that and again this get we're
starting to get away from that. The the
slope aspect I think is
you know, I've certainly I have no issue
from going a little bit higher to a
higher percentage on the on the on the
grade if it if it's not going to add any
extra and it meets the driveway
requirements regarding regarding grade
and stuff like that but the the
panhandle I I I don't think should be
an option used in infill at all. So.
Go ahead.
>> Yeah, so I just want to address a couple
of things. So the panhandle I was for
the panhandles would would essentially
just be that property's driveway. So
there's no strata cuz there's no sharing
on a it's just for that specific real
estate entity
using that panhandle as part of one
singular parcel just like any other
parcel would use a their their driveway.
>> The concern when I read this and the
concern that people brought up to my
attention is where there's a panhandle
that is shared by two or three homes
those that is a strata road and it's
owned by each one of the owners.
And therefore that you're putting owner
against owner to be able to allow him to
add another title to that another access
point to that where it's only to
facilitate currently the three homes or
two homes or whatever it is right now.
So there was some big concerns about
that.
>> Yeah, so I know there is an option to
have sort of a shared interest and and
sometimes an access easement that's a
specific sort of
I would say access alternative that
could be sought through a subdivision.
However, as it's proposed it's just for
the singular access for the current
parcel under the application.
>> So people could then create their own
panhandle if they had their own property
to be able to access the rear of the
property.
>> Yeah, I mean like I guess easements
between property owners can can be
established at any rate.
>> Yeah, okay. I saw a Webberink had his
hand up.
Go ahead.
>> Thank you, Mayor McKeown.
I have to agree with Mayor McKeown and
Councillor Richardson. I think this is
all a little too close to the election.
This could all get turned around after
the election.
So,
I would I would not be in favor of
moving forward with this at the time.
>> Okay. Did I see Councillor Trobridge Did
you have your hand up or you just
adjusting your
Go ahead.
>> No, sorry.
It was my hand up. I I'm of the same
mind. I mean,
I like everything uh
I'm comfortable with everything, I
should say, in terms of the slope
applying to just the building envelope,
things like that make a lot of sense.
But, if it's all packaged together with
panhandles, etc., I prefer to defer it.
>> Good.
Okay, so we have a motion on the table
that's moved and seconded. So, to defer it would then simply be to
wait to be voted against it. So, all
those in favor of
Oh, sorry, Councillor Richardson, do you
have one more comment?
>> Yes, one comment and one suggestion.
So,
my read of this is existing panhandle
lots are not considered in this. Is that
true?
Like, if you have a lot that's narrower
than 20 50 m,
you could potentially
put something behind your thing and
create an access that would look like a
panhandle, but current panhandle lots,
like the rear part of a
any lot that has a panhandle currently,
this does not apply to. Correct?
>> Yeah, so as the bylaw is currently
worded, 50-m frontage is a requirement
to be eligible for infill. Okay. So,
that unless the panhandle is 50 m wide,
which I doubt.
>> Okay, fair enough. So, then
you know, I would make the amendment
that
uh be given first second reading and
then Ambleside be referred to the
following No, not committees.
That it be amended so that the only
thing considered is that 20% on building
area.
And then all the other stuff gets passed
down the pipe.
Because the my understanding in talking
with one person that has the 20% issue,
like 20.05 or something. That the lot's
a bit of a V
and they're not planning to build on the
V, which is a creek. But that, if you
add up the slope, the absolute value,
makes a very steep lot, even though the
lot's not that steep. So, you know,
mathematically how it goes. So, I don't
know if we can
do that and just limit it to the one
thing.
>> So, so right now we have a motion on the
table that encompasses all everything.
We could do an amendment which would
take it down to But we'd have to vote
those other ones down.
>> Okay, fair enough.
>> So, I think it's best that we just
simply vote it down currently. Or if
that's the if that's what the appetite
of council is, and then we could come
back with another one which is just and
describe a little bit more cuz I'd like
to get a little bit more details on the
grade and why it was actually even
initially set up as well at 20% or where
that number kind of came from. I think
it was kind of arbitrarily kind of taken
out of there in our in our one of our
GSL maps. And that's so, I'm going to
call the question. All those in favor of
what's on voting this in favor right
now.
Opposed?
Motion is defeated. Okay. So, we'll come
back with something then.
Okay.
Move on to We're now on to 9B, zoning
amendment bylaw classification of
basement exemption.
>> of order here. So, if we defeated option
one
how do we get option two onto the table?
>> We we debated all of that and I said to
Mr. Joseph to bring back the the height
requirement if possible and then we can
talk about that.
Go ahead, Ms. Helwig.
>> Thank you. Through the chair, I think
that that would be challenging to also
be bringing back additional information
um given that there's only two meetings
uh until the end of the council term.
There's a meeting on September 22nd and
then another one in October. We could
certainly report back uh in
the September meeting, but then to
schedule a public hearing and bring it
forward to adoption would be very
challenging um in that time frame.
>> To change that
threshold, the percentage of the grade
percentage,
is that a full OCP review?
>> To the chair, no. This I mean, it's been
considered and reviewed, which is part
of this package. However, um as it
essentially it would just be to strike
out number three of RLU RLU 16 from the bylaw. That's where the bylaw would
read.
>> But as I said, I would like to
understand where that came from and and
the ramifications of that as well.
>> Yeah, I'm
so
20% is is the sort of the number that
was chosen for steep slopes generally.
Um I don't have the exact history, but I
imagine that sort of uh through
discussions probably you know, with the
village that they decided that infill
shouldn't be on steep slopes and if
steep slopes equals 20%, then the
average grade percentage applies to all.
>> So, Ms. Ms. Helwig or Esson,
that minor adjustment to go from 20 to
say 25%,
is that could that be done over two
meetings?
>> Is it public hearing?
>> It's a
imma- it's a fairly small change in that
regard. So, we're not changing the
intent of the bylaw. We're not changing
very much of it.
>> still would be through the chair. It
still would be a bylaw amendment.
>> Right.
>> So that could be done in two meetings.
>> Yeah.
>> Um being the first meeting would be
September 22nd. Your second meeting in
October
I want to say
seven-ish. Um however, that would also
be the public hearing night and there
would not be um time for referrals to uh
any other municipalities, school
district, First Nations, or any
committees. If that's council's desire
to just do that bylaw amendment, that
could be
>> So would
>> technically achievable in two meetings.
>> I just wanted to you know, um
it
by it increasing the threshold doesn't
necessarily sort of address what we're doing, the intent of it. The
intent is where there is a building site
that is less than 20% that we're not up
holding it up because
10% is drastically steep and now has
contributed to the overall average
density. That could be 25 or that could
be 30 or 40. But it would what's on the
ground is the intent is to just allow
for the areas that are completely not in
steep slope areas to be developed under
development permit guidelines.
» So I think it's best My personal view is
that we would just leave leave this as
be because again, we have a discussion
that's been an ongoing discussion about
basement heights, which are all about
slope as well, which is coming up with
the next item at this point in time. So
>> You both through the chair. I don't know
if they're completely related because
you know, development on 30%, 40% is
>> Yeah, it's it's dealing with slope uh
slope development. So
>> Yeah, I understand. It's just not a OCP
issue.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Hello.
>> Councilor Trowbridge.
>> Yeah, so
um
I don't quite maybe don't understand,
but I don't see the relationship to a
slope discussion. My understanding
is that removal of 16 RUL or RLU
was to allow if if a if a property had a steep slope on it,
but it was not in the building envelope,
then we would allow the building in the
building envelope. It It It's really
more about where the slope is, isn't it,
George?
>> Mr. Chair, that's correct, yeah. So
>> Yeah, so I would be fine
uh with with an amended motion going
forward with that component without the
rest, which is, I think, what Councillor
Richardson suggested.
>> So, we voted
Procedurally, we voted down the motion
that was on the table, which included
everything which Mr. Joseph put on the
thing. So, it would have to be a new
motion forward that if somebody wants to
put it forward that we would we would
entertain.
>> I'll put that motion forward that we
entertain the one segment.
» I'd second that.
>> What What do we put What is the motion
that you're seconding?
>> The My understanding the motion is,
which we're going to get from our
corporate officer in a very exacting and
precise way very shortly,
is that
on lots where the or the average
gradient may be more than 20% if there
is a building area less than 20% that would be allowed in infill. And And
the reason I would support that is like
here's two examples. You have a lot,
it's an acre,
half of it's dead flat,
half of it's at 40%.
Okay? That would not be allowed.
Half of it's dead flat, the other half
is at 30%, that would be allowed. And I
really don't see the difference between
those two lots other than the steepness
of the embankment down to the creek or
whatever it happens to be. So, I I'm all
in favor of if you have a building area
that's suitable, you get to build.
>> Okay, so do we have a motion on
>> Mr. Chair, I can read out a motion. Um
so, I suppose where's the original?
So, the recommendation is that the
Village of Anmore Official Community
Plan Amendment Bylaw number 722-2025
as amended.
>> No, it's not amended. We didn't amend
that motion was voted down.
So, there's a new motion.
>> No, but if we're going to amend what's
on currently.
Well, we could.
I don't either.
» Can we just take the one section and put it as a motion?
» Um
I need um Counselor Richardson, through
the chair, if you could please give me a
complete sentence,
that would be very helpful.
Okay.
Yep.
>> Your mic's not on.
» Back to the beginning. I don't know the
exact wording, but that the
existing bylaw or the policy 61 be
amended so that on
that you're allowed to do infill on lots
where a building area is available less
than 20%.
Is Is that sentence enough?
>> [laughter]
>> I I know.
>> [snorts]
>> Cuz cuz this will drive to the public
hearing, right?
If we give it first and second, public
hearing is next, so it should be pretty
clear what we're saying.
>> Absolutely.
>> Okay, can I
Do you want me to try something?
here
that hopefully we captures it? So, the
motion would read that
um where a building site is equal or
less than the 20% slope, infill
properties would be accepted under our
current policy.
» Perfect.
» So, through the chair and just um
chatting with Mr. Joseph here,
we could potentially
amend
um
722-2025
that is included in the agenda package
in a way that we could give it two
readings this evening if Mr. Squizzero
Cara
is
uh all right with that. Uh Mr. Joseph
has the sections of that bylaw, which is
on 20 page 25 and 26 of your agenda that
could be amended, um given two readings,
and then we could move forward
that way this evening and go to public
hearing in September.
>> Um so, just to clarify, um updating the sentence on the
um
item three
on page 25, is that what I'm looking at?
Mr. Joseph.
>> Yeah, that's correct, yeah.
>> Okay.
Um
we can we can potentially say that the
um
the bylaw section
two uh item three be amended, and then
whatever the amendment needs to be, that
we can add
the amendment and uh go forward with
that.
So,
>> Councilor Richardson,
if I read 722-2025,
it actually be able to identify building
site sites that are equal to less than
20% slope. It's actually already in
there. It doesn't have to be amended.
>> We would need to amend to delete the
parts of the bylaw that you do not wish
to include. So, um if you will indulge
for a moment, Mr. Joseph can read that
out for council.
>> Okay.
It was a hot day out there today.
This doesn't talk about pan handles.
Thank you all for your patience.
Yeah, that's right. Um
so, I'll just start from here.
We don't need to do anything with it.
Okay, so the amendments uh would be to
number two of the bylaw.
Uh that the Village of Anmore Official
Community Plan Designation Bylaw number
532-2014
be amended under chapter 4, Land Use, as
follows.
So, delete policy RLU 16 in its entirety and replace it with the
following.
And uh I'll just read out the sections.
So, policy RLU 16, and this is uh what
it is already currently written for this
intro paragraph. The village supports
infill development and subsequent
creation of new residences that maintain
the existing semi-rural nature of
Anmore. Infill development is the
creation of new parcels within the
existing developed area of the Village
of Anmore that are serviced by existing
infrastructure. The intent of infill
development is that it will enhance and
not take away from the look and feel of
the neighborhood. It is expected that
any new infill homes will blend into the
existing neighborhood, minimize the
disturbance to natural environment, and
will adhere to the same setbacks as the
existing neighborhood. Infill
development should be guided by infill
development policy that aligns with
specific requirements that the community
expects expects from infill development
to ensure that it meets the intent of
this policy. The maximum density allowed
for infill development is 2.04 parcels
per acre.
Parcels that are eligible for
consideration under this policy must not
have been created through previous
comprehensive development plan,
be between 300 3 3,925 square meters and
8,900 8,094 square meters in area,
be able to identify building sites that
are equal to or greater than 20% slope,
not require the extension, expansion,
extension or expansion of any village
road or water infrastructure,
and have at least 50 m frontage on a
public highway,
and have been in existence for at least
5 years as of the date of the
application.
» Yes.
We're So, for those people listening,
we're striking off the back half of item
five.
>> Correct.
» Okay.
>> I move it.
>> Move it. Could I get someone to second
it?
>> Second.
Open up for discussion.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call the question.
>> All those in favor?
Opposed? Motion's carried.
>> Okay.
>> And that's ordered through the chair.
I'll just read out the rest of the
recommendations for the referrals that
are required,
as well as public hearing.
>> Oh, what what's now required for public
hearing?
>> Yes.
>> Yeah, that cuz yeah, yeah, it was the
package.
>> Um so, following that uh and that uh and
more official community plan amendment
bylaw number 722-2025 be referred to the
following committees as it relates to
the mandate of each committee.
And that in relation to the Village of
Anmore Official Community Plan Amendment
Bylaw number 722-2025,
amendments associated with the proposed
updates to policy R only 16 infill
development, Council will provide the
following additional opportunities it
considers appropriate for consultation
with persons, organizations, or
authorities it considers will be
affected, including the municipalities
of the Village of Belcarra and the City
of Port Moody, School District number
43, Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh,
and Kwikwetlem First Nations, and that a
public hearing be scheduled following
the referral process.
>> Do we need to move that in
Okay, [clears throat] can someone to
move that? Second? I'll
call the question. All those in favor?
Carried.
Do we have more to add?
>> Did you want to add any committees for
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> We Yeah.
>> That's right.
» Okay. So, can we move on to uh 9B?
Are we good?
Oh, right. Oh, you can get
Okay, we're now on to uh 9B Zoning
Amendment Bylaw classification on
basement exemption report dated July
17th, 2020 from Manager of Development
Services attached. Mr. Joseph.
>> Thank you.
So, the purpose of this report is to
present bylaw number 745-2026,
a zoning amendment bylaw that clarifies
how the basement exemption applies under
section 5.25 of the zoning bylaw, along
with the related housekeeping correction
to section 5.6. So, at the May 5th
regular council meeting, staff brought
forward proposed amendments to the
section 5.25, the basement exemption
provision. Council deferred that
discussion and asked staff to come back
with visual impact modeling to see what
the current regulations allow in terms
of building massing. Staff returned on
the June 12th with a report that
included visual representations of
what's permitted under the under the
existing rule and identified the
specific sections proposed to be
clarified. At that meeting, council
passed a motion directing staff to
initiate amendments to section 5.25 and
section 5.6. Additional sections are
being proposed to provide greater
clarity in relation to the basement
exemption.
So, the current formula in section 5.25
from
letters A through D that determines how
much basement floor area is exempt from
the floor area ratio calculation will
remain the same. What the amendment does
is add three new sections, E, F, and G,
that address how the exemption applies
across the building. Uh because the
current wording may incentivize numerous
exposed basement floors that would be
eligible for 100% basement exemption,
which would increase the apparent
massing of the building.
There is currently no limit on how many
stories in a single building can qualify for the full basement exemption.
So, on slope lots, final finished grade
and building design can produce two or
more stories that each meet the
definition of a basement, some of them
partially exposed, which can make a
building look like it's four to six
stories tall from the street level.
Subsection E fixes this by limiting the
exemption to no more than one uppermost
basement story per building.
Sub-basement stories below that would
still be permitted, but they would count
towards the lot's maximum floor area
ratio like any other floor area.
The second consideration is height of a
story. As currently worded, there's no
cap on the floor-to-floor height that
the exempt story uh would apply to,
which means a single basement story
could be built well beyond the typical
story height and still only count count
as one story for the purposes of
subsection E. So, subsection F caps the
exempt story at 3.66 m, which is 1/3 of
our 111 m maximum building height,
essentially the height of one story
within a standard three-story envelope.
However, staff have also included
subsection G. It provides a full 100%
exemption for stories below the exempt
basement story, but only where that
story is completely buried entirely
below finished grade at every point
around the building's perimeter.
Staff recognize that the story with no
exterior exposure at all doesn't
contribute to the parent massing of the
building, so staff have included the
section to differentiate between a
partially exposed stories.
Finally, staff are proposing a
housekeeping amendment to section 5.6.1,
which clarifies how building height is
measured, so that it's based on a lower
of the average natural grade or average
finished grade. Right now, that section
doesn't quite line up with section
5.5.2,
which already uses that standard, and
this brings the two into alignment, and
it also reflects the current staff
practice.
So, the recommendation is that council
give first and second reading to
Ambleside Amendment Bylaw number
745-2026
related to section 5.25 basement
exemption and section 5.6 building and
structure height, and that a public
hearing be scheduled for Bylaw 745-2026.
Thank you.
>> Could I get someone to move that?
Move, second, open up for discussion.
Anybody? Uh okay, I I I have a couple of
questions. And so,
I can't support this if it doesn't at
least offer a 9-ft ceiling height for
the basement. I don't have a problem
with basements going deeper
um than that, but I just wanted to
clarify cuz it's this is kind of compli-
I saw in here there was a calculation of
2.75 m for the basement floor, but most
basements that I'm going into right now
are minimum 9-ft finished. And I I can't
do an 8-ft finish because again, we're
also supposed to be promoting suites in
the in these in these buildings as well.
So, if you can you confirm what the
finished height would be or
presume
you could give me the rough height as
well. It would probably be It would have
to be about 10 ft then.
>> Yeah, so the full story is 12 ft.
>> Okay.
>> So, it's 3.66 in the amendment bylaws.
>> So, it says on page seven
no greater than 2.75 m.
Which is 9 ft.
On page seven or sorry, 46 of your
report if there's a color picture of the
house up above it.
>> Yeah, so I think what you're referring
to is the previous report where I
referenced what West Vancouver's height
limit is for exempted story. What What
we're proposing is 1/3 of our current
height, which is 3.66.
>> 3.6 m. So, can you tell me what is 3 3.6
in
>> 12 ft.
So, basement height would be 12
ft. Could go down
>> from floor to floor.
>> Right. And it can go down into the
ground to make that 12 ft.
>> This only for the exempted portion is 12
ft. Anything that's completely buried
there's no height there's no height.
cap.
>> Okay.
>> There's a full exemption. There's no
height cap.
>> Okay.
Do I have
Councillor Do you
>> Just to clarify, this is the 3.66 m is
only on the additional floor on the
exempted part when you're like building
on a hillside.
>> Correct. Correct.
Just on a hillside.
>> No, it it doesn't apply. This is just
primarily where the problem would exist.
>> Throughout, right? Yeah. Cuz you can on
a on a
slope or fairly fairly level lot, you
can still go down.
As you want, right?
>> Yeah, so they you could.
>> Yeah, and I guess one of my questions
that I had as well was on I guess it's the color one here which is page
six or 45. Just about where
average grade is and how that's
calculated.
» Yes, so we mean the average grade is is
>> If you could use that photo there just
to kind of give me I
an understanding
>> Which figure? Sorry.
>> The the bottom one.
>> Three? Figure three?
>> I guess it's the color probably one,
yeah.
>> Yeah, so it's it's where the perimeter
of the building meets the ground. And so
if it's going up a slope, that perimeter
goes up the slope with it. So if it's on
a fairly, you know, uh
even path, then the average grade
becomes the halfway number of where the perimeter meets the ground.
>> Okay.
That was all the questions. So you've
confirmed that the the basement there is
not a limit of of an 8-point, which is
great. So any other questions before I
call the questions?
Seeing none, all those in favor?
Carried unanimously. Thank you, Mr.
Joseph.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay.
Uh we'll now move on to
uh 12A Committee of the Whole meeting.
The following recreation was made. Uh
Mr. Boyd.
» Thank [clears throat] you, Worship.
Uh so the The purpose of this report is
to uh follows the introduction of the
development cost charges by the law,
which uh was uh
shown to council at Committee of the
Whole. It Uh this report provides a
brief summary of that introduction,
presents the proposed 2026 DCC
uh rate schedule for the village, and it
seeks council's direction to prepare a
draft DCC bylaw.
So a quick background. At the Committee
of the Whole, staff introduced the DCC
framework and the case for updating the
villages and charges. And just to
summarize that that is that the DCCs are
one-time charge for new development
authorized in the part 14 division 19 of
the LGA.
Uh that allows us to recover the growth
related share of capital costs of
infrastructure required to service new
development.
The village's existing DCC bylaw dates
to the 20 2005 and no longer reflects
current construction costs, the village
capital planning, or anticipated growth.
Provincial best practice is to update
the TCC program every 3 to 5 years.
Rates are established through a defined
methodology, projecting growth,
identifying the growth related capital
projects,
and costs, assigning each a benefit
allocation between existing and new
development, applying a municipal assist
factor, and dividing the recoverable
costs across the expected growth units.
Staff worked through the recreation tool
with council committee of the whole,
illustrating how the inputs
input assumptions produce the proposed
rates. A comparison with the neighboring
municipalities was provided for context,
and staff outlined the process ahead, uh
preparation of draft bylaw,
consultation, readings, approval by
inspector of municipalities, and then
adoption.
This report is just to advance this to
council uh for their consideration.
>> Good.
>> So, as we can see in the rate table
below, uh these were developed based on
the conversations that we had at the
committee of the whole. Um
Uh so, the residential rates are based
on occupancy assumptions of one suite
per single family house, adding an
incremental 1/2 person per lot,
consistent with the current small-scale
multi-use uh housing provision. This was
a conversation that we had at the
committee of the whole on whether we
should assume that there was going to be
more uptake or not of uh suites within
the village. Um staff could take this
away as well and and continue to look at
past uh building permit applications to
determine what the occupancy rate of
suites have been in the village over the
past 5 years. We currently haven't done
that.
Uh
okay, next one. Uh sundry sewer is is
not applicable cuz we don't have
sanitary sewers within the villages a
service. We currently only have it
within AGP.
And we don't anticipate building any
sewers of our own, so therefore there
are no projects.
Um, an important note was regarding
protective services. Although recent
provincial legislation added fire and
police facilities as eligible DCC
categories, fire protection in the
village is delivered through the Sasamat
fire protection service, a Metro
Vancouver regional district function.
And policing capital was not a cost
borne by the directly by the village.
therefore has no eligible
protective services capital cost on
which to base a charge. As noted above,
the
fire protection in the village is
delivered through fire Sasamat fire
protection service, a Metro Vancouver
regional district function, and the
associated capital assets, including the
fire hall,
are regional assets funded through the
service rather than by the village
directly. For this reason, the
growth-related capital cost for the
anticipated fire hall upgrades cannot be
recovered through the village's own
development cost charges. It is
nonetheless appropriate for the
development to contribute its fair share
towards these services. So, I therefore
recommend the village formally request
that Metro Vancouver consider
establishing a DCC for Sasamat fire
protection service to recover the
growth-related portion of the fire hall
upgrades cost consistent with the newly
eligible fire protection service
category under the LGA. Any such, uh,
charges would be developed, adopted, and
administered by Metro Vancouver through
its own bylaw and cost allocation
process in consultation with the Village
of Anmore and Belcarra as being
participating members of the service and
would apply in addition to the village's
DCC rather than through them. So, we
also, uh, prior, sorry, following the
publication of this report, we've also
received word back
from the province to clarify this note.
And I'll just read, uh, one particular
note from within their their email that
was, and I quote, "Our interpretation of
capital cost is that the capital asset
be owned or controlled by the local
government such that it is capitalized
on the audited financial statements of
the local government. So,
based on on that coming back from the
province, they kind of substantiated
what we thought in the past that that
because we don't actually own the asset,
we're not allowed to collect DCC. Again,
it's important to note that we we do
have a mechanism to collect it, but Amur
itself cannot collect it directly based
on legislation.
Uh okay, land use categories and zoning.
Uh the rate schedule presents charges
for a full range of land use categories.
So, the DCC framework is completely and
internally consistent. Some of these
categories do not currently permit or or
contemplated under the villages zone and
bylaw or OCP. The inclusion in the
schedule is for the calculation and
information purposes only. It does not
imply or confer any development
entitlement, zoning permissions, or
rights to develop these uses in the
village until the zone and bylaw is
amended to permit a given use. The
corresponding DCC rate has no
application, and the value set in the
rates now is that should council of the
future consider
enabling any of these uses, a defensible
charge would be already be established
and showing that any such development
contributes fair share towards
growth-related infrastructure.
And then lastly, uh park acquisition
charges. Uh the proposed schedule does
not include a park acquisition DCC.
While park acquisition is an eligible
category under the Local Government Act,
a defensible parks DCC must be grounded
in adopted parkland
provision standard, typically expressed
as an amount of parkland per capita or
per dwelling, from which the quan- the
quantity and cost of the land need to be
need to serve growth can be determined.
The village does not currently have a
policy establishing a park provision
standard. In its absence, there is no
defensible basis on which to determine
the per capita land requirement or the
associated acquisition cost, and the
parks acquisition charge has therefore
been excluded at this time. Should
council wish to pursue parkland
acquisition funding through DCC in in in
the future, staff would first recommend
adoption of the park acquisition policy
standard and would then allow a park DCC
to be calculated and incorporated into
the bylaw amendment.
Then finally, financial implications.
The the the financial implication
obviously there's there's none related
to staff direct the the
uh to the village directly. The
However, there would obviously be a cost
association with managing the DCC's work
and once adopted the DCC charges are
expected to materially improve the
village's ability to fund growth related
water drainage and road infrastructure
from development rather than from
general tax base.
Lastly, next steps
from staff recommendations would be to
prepare the draft development cost
charges bylaw incorporating the proposed
rate schedule and supporting background
study, consult with the development
community and other interested parties
consistent with the provincial
guidelines, request Metro Vancouver
consider establishing a development cost
charge for Semiahmoo fire protection
services to recover the growth related
cost of the firehall upgrades, and bring
the draft bylaw to council for
consideration.
Okay, I can read the resolution if
you wish you wish to.
>> Sure.
>> Okay, that staff be directed to bring
the draft development cost charges bylaw
forward to council for consideration and
that staff be directed to undertake
consultation with the development
community and other interested parties
on the proposed development cost charges
and that staff be directed to contact
Metro Vancouver in relation to
consideration of the establishing a
development cost charge bylaw for
Semiahmoo fire protection services.
>> Good. Can I get someone to move that?
Moved and second open up for some
discussion.
Mr. Boyd, just for clarity, I just
wanted to who did you talk to at the
province regarding the Metro Vancouver's
role with the Semiahmoo volunteer fire
department so I can follow up with them.
>> One second.
» Or Ms. Elwork, who did it that
>> I've got it. It's uh Ministry of Housing
and Municipal Affairs uh the financial
office and uh
>> And is there a Do you have a person
there?
>> Uh the person that sent to us was Jenny
Chang.
>> Could I get a copy of that, please?
>> I can circulate it to all of council.
>> Perfect. Thanks.
Um the reason I say that, Mr. Boyd, is
that we um
I was concerned about this because
again, there is such confusion when it
comes to the fire department um and the
real clarity of it is is that the uh
Metro Vancouver
simply we pay them a service to operate
the fire department and the assets are
actually owned by each of the
municipalities. And they've given a
legal ruling saying that we should be
collecting the DCCs and it should be
part of this program. So I'd I'd
certainly like to to flush that out a
little bit because I know it is somewhat
confusing. So but anyway, it's been uh
I'll I'll follow up cuz I Metro
Vancouver had some interest there. Ms.
Alaric.
>> Sorry, Mayor McKeown. I may have
misunderstood. Um did you say who gave a
legal ruling regarding this?
>> No, that opinion that we that I
distributed to staff and council was
there from a legal aspect.
From I think it was Mr. Brant, Brant
Smith or whatever sent that out this
morning.
So
anyway, open up any
Councilor Craig.
>> Did we have a
Why was it sent to Metro? Did we have a
motion to send it to them? I thought
that was done after. Yeah, as a
>> As a fire trustee, I sent it there cuz I
was sure unclear of it why it was being
uh separated here. So
>> Okay.
Councilor Richardson.
» Okay, I'm trying to wrap my head around
all that.
So in summary, cuz it was a bit hard to
hear.
If the village owns the asset, we can
charge or plans to own the asset, we can
charge DCCs.
Is that correct?
>> So yeah, it has to be on our financial.
That's right.
>> Sorry, through the chair, it must be
owned or controlled by the local
government such that it is capitalized
on the audited financial statements of
the local government, which in this case
it is not.
>> Okay, so ju- just just on that cuz when
I read the letter from Metro,
I didn't hear a clear opinion that we
could collect DCCs on them. I thought
our plan was that we were going to ask
Metro, since it's their asset, to
collect DCCs like they do for
uh water and sewer directly to the
village. So, Metro Vancouver would
charge the DCCs. Is that correct?
>> Mitch would collect DCCs for the water
that is outside of the village that
comes to the village.
>> Yeah, but they they do collect for those
services.
So, Metro Vancouver we haven't got an
answer back from Metro Vancouver that
they can they can collect.
>> Through the chair, we have not formally
reached out to Metro Vancouver. Um Mayor
McKeown, uh I understand reached out to
Metro Vancouver, but we're waiting for
direction from council. And as part of
the process, we would be reaching out to
Metro Vancouver. Um as we indicated,
we've already reached out and got
response back from the province. And
additionally, we will be um
seeking legal advice through the village
solicitor who will be uh preparing the
bylaw for us, and we have had some
preliminary discussion with them on
this, and will continue to explore
options on um
how we may collect DCCs.
>> Okay. And then my last question is,
like if we were planning to build a
water reservoir in 20 years to support
our growth, we could collect DCCs on
that project, could we not?
Mr. Boyd?
>> Mr. Boyd's shaking his head as I think
yes.
>> Yeah, correct. It is provided it it was being built in relation to the
growth within the village. So So,
typically that would be the answer to
that.
>> So, therefore, if we got commitment from
Metro Vancouver that once it was all
paid off, they would transfer
the fire hall to Anmore,
then that would be the same thing. We're
just going through some other path, are
we not?
>> I suppose the answer would be
>> No, concurrently.
>> Sorry, to share the um assets that are
already developed, we can't post a DCC
after the fact. So, the assets are
currently held under Metro's financial
statements. As such, that's why we we
would propose to go through Metro's DCC
bylaw.
» I I What's the question, Councillor
Richardson? Could we transfer the
ownership for the fire hall to the
village?
>> Yeah, Lena kind of answered it. It's
like
it We already [clears throat] The
asset's already there, but we just get
it transferred at the end doesn't count
is what I heard. But, you know, I was at
the Well, we could build it for 20 years
and then maybe it would, but
anyway.
But, you know,
>> [laughter]
>> it's it is a bit of a convoluted mess
cuz we as trustees we went through this
in the fact if we were to ever to
separate, how do the assets get divided?
And so, it is a very it's not an easy easy ask whatsoever. So, I've got
uh Councillor Trowbridge.
» Thank you. Yeah, my understanding of the
motion that's in front of us though is
that staff is going to explore every
opportunity to recover DCCs in whatever
route uh through whatever legal process.
So,
uh I'm in favor of just moving this
forward and letting staff do their job.
>> Good. Um
any other questions or anything else? I had one, Mr. Boyd, regarding the park
DCC.
Um, I read through the parks master plan
and from page one on, it talks about us
implementing a park DCC. And I know
Metro Vancouver, we've recently done
that in the last year and it was very well received because again, as
you're creating and in this case, there
seems to be possibly an incentive for
more multi-family because of the costing
of of the DCCs being proposed. The green
space that's going to be required in
that. So, is is that something that
could be added on to this DCC cuz it's
referenced quite heavily in the fact in
the parks master plan, which I guess was
done sort of 2015-2016.
» For sure, yeah. I mean, the the village
have the right to to acquire DCCs for parkland acquisition.
Again, the policy just needs to be
written mainly to it. So,
I wouldn't recommend attaching it to
this DCC because it's going to take a
little bit of time consultation to get
through that unless it's council's will.
But, most certainly, you you can write a
DCC for parkland.
>> Yeah, and I just I also wanted to just
add that, you know, Metro Vancouver,
this Friday, we're actually going to
reduce DCCs that Metro Vancouver's
employ
instigated because of the fact of the
and it has to go to the register of uh
of municipalities of Victoria and there
seems to be this big push in reducing
costs to be able to produce housing. So,
we're not sure whether this will get
approved, but we'll we'll certainly put
it forward, but I'm looking forward to
some to having some more discussion.
It's a significant raise to what we're
currently paying, which is currently
about $10,700
per lot that's being created and taking
it up to 23,000. It's It's significant.
And then, when you throw on, you know,
the Metro portion, TransLink, you know,
we're at $32,000 for the creation of a
lot, 33,042
for the creation of a lot, which is significant. So.
Good. Okay, no further questions. I'll
call the question. All those in favor?
Opposed? Carried unanimously. Thank you,
Mr. Boyd.
>> Thank you.
>> Uh okay, now we'll move on to the
mayor's report. I don't really have a
lot. Uh please be cautious. The water uh
restrictions went down to phase or to
level two.
So, you are allowed to water shrubs uh
and hand watering. Allowed to wash your
car.
Um fire ban is in. It's I know that a
new fire just opened up in the Fraser
Valley tonight. It's it's a very, very
precarious time right now. We need to
get through the next couple weeks.
Hopefully, I think there's going to be
some rain due on Saturday and Sunday.
And I think that's about it. I'll move
on counselor's reports. Counselor
Richardson.
>> Okay, three things. One for the public
and I think
Miss Elrick might cover this is election
dates
uh for the information sessions.
» Through the chair, is that for candidate
information
>> Yes.
>> sessions?
Um yes, he stole my thunder.
>> Okay, so I'll let you
go ahead.
>> go ahead.
>> [laughter]
>> Okay, go.
>> No, I
happy to give you the dates um
>> No, no, just save it. I don't need to.
Um the other thing was mentioned
earlier, this was the last meeting for
public input until after the election.
So, what public question period? Say
your peace or forever hold your more.
Um
on garbage days, it's interesting to me
because the bears go around and tip
garbage over.
And unfortunately, or fortunately, it
lets me see what people are throwing
out.
And I have to say I'm a bit appalled on
the recyclables and compostables that
are in garbage bins. I don't know if
there's anything we can do about it, but
glass bottles, clear plastic, films, etc., etc., etc. And it
drives me nuts. So, um I just want to
say
it doesn't take a lot of time. Please
put more care in your garbage and
recyclables.
And then the last thing is I bumped into
Jay Sharp a few times at my office,
which is
the leftmost seat at Starbucks at 1:30
most days.
And we've had chats with other residents
about the fire halls.
And I suggested to Mr. Sharp that he
could do a town hall or something cuz it
he brings the temperature down of people
who are quite upset.
And he informed me that he cannot do
that without the approval of the
trustees.
And really council has this council has
no say
on
the fire thing other than through the
trustees. So, I make my request to the
Anmore trustees, could you request or
give permission to Mr. Sharp to do a
town hall
on the fire halls? That would be greatly
appreciated by the residents at large.
Thank you.
>> I I actually believe there's going to be
an RFP coming out. There'll be an
actually a special meeting for the for
the handy note of the RFP for the design
and everything. So, that would be a
perfect opportunity to to get people out
to ask questions. So,
to me.
Okay. Uh Chief Administrative Report.
>> Thank you.
The election candidate
um sessions. Um and these are the
sessions that are uh administered by our
Chief Election Officer, Lori Darkis,
um where potential candidates can find
out uh about the election process, about
uh
what uh
being an elected official uh looks like,
and and responsibilities related to
that. So, we are looking at holding two
info sessions this time. Um all of this
information will be up on the village
website in the coming weeks as well, but
the dates for the info sessions will be
in the evening August 27th and September
2nd
uh right now. And uh so, please check
for that and other information and
updates on the election uh page, which
is on the Village of Anmore website, and
we will be uh more targeted uh
communication coming out on that. Um and
then additionally further to um the
recommendation this evening, uh watch
for um
early September. We expect that we will
be having uh an information session um
firstly for the development community,
but then secondly um for the broader
public on uh development cost charges
and uh what exactly they are and uh how
they're determined and and projects and
whatnot um just so that the general
public uh understands the uh DCCs and
the bylaw before it comes back to
council uh hopefully later in September.
That's it for me.
>> Good. Thank you. I've got uh some
general correspondence letter dated from
the chair of the regional district of
the Central Okanagan and town of Lake
Country. Public input and question
period. This is the last one, so
I thought you said it was the Is it the
last one? It is, yeah. So, please name and address, please.
>> Is this working?
>> You're
>> product 1815 East Road. I'm just
wondering if the municipality proper, I
mean,
uh the village is exempt from the water
restrictions. I see, for example, circle
hoses out here and
uh or something that's making the plants
grow quite well. And I was just
wondering if the village is uh exempt from water
restrictions
uh when we were
uh obeying them.
>> Well, the water restrictions now are
down back to a level two, so you are
allowed to hand water shrubs and that,
yeah.
>> But, water is we uh
the residents were restricted from using
soaker hoses.
>> I don't know how the vegetation out here
grew out
quite
quickly and must have been fed by water.
I'm just wondering if there's exemptions
for the village and not for residents.
>> Just for clarity, are you talking about
the ferns that came up from the dirt
area in the front?
>> and also at the steps here.
>> Uh I don't know about the steps, but
those darned ferns,
they they come up no matter what you do.
So, in the front around like on the east
Sunny Side Road section, all the green
that came up through the newly laid in
soil, I don't think that was watered at
all.
>> Okay, Joe.
And I was just curious. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
» Hi, this is Mike 2555 Sunny Side Road.
Um
I don't know if I'm allowed to how I'm
going to be able to ask these questions.
Do I do it through you?
>> Yeah.
>> Because it's a contractor and it's also
a member of the staff
that I have these questions for.
>> Can you send me an email about it or
>> Uh
>> Can you generalize what what it
>> Okay. Well,
>> Uh we don't want anybody's name
mentioned or anything like that.
>> No, I'm not Well, May 5th, I uh we had
the council meeting. After the meeting,
we talked about the drainage of the
Spirit Park. After the meeting, I met
with the city ca- the municipal
contractor in charge of that and we set
up for a time, 2:00 the next day to
go and and meet over there. Um I was
there for more than half an hour,
gave up because he never showed up. So,
May 6th, the next day or that day, um I
phoned city hall when I went in and I I
asked the receptionist or whoever
answered the phone, um what do I do? Can
I have his number? She said, "No, I'll
leave a posted note for him. I will get
him to contact you and also email him."
So, I emailed him. That was on May 6th.
June 23rd, I I also left my phone
number. June 23rd, I sent another email.
This time I CC'd one of the staff. I'm
not allowed to say which staff because
we're not allowed to say names. Uh that
was June 23rd. I emailed the staff
saying, "Hey, um well, not the staff. I
CC'd the staff and I emailed the
contractor.
And I said, um we were supposed to meet.
That was a month ago. I waited a month.
How come we didn't meet? Here's my phone
number. Can we please meet?" Then, um
today is the 20
>> first of July. I still have not received
any correspondence from the city staff
and the contractor in charge and they've
already um sent the tender out for that
or awarded the tender. So, so who do I
What do I do?
>> If I can ask if you can send me that
string of emails
and and that and then I will I'll talk
to Karen
>> Okay.
>> uh Ms. Halbert.
>> Okay. Yeah, because
>> Okay.
>> I'm I'm frustrated that it's been 2
months and it's been a month for the
city staff to get back to me as well as
the contractor. 2 months.
>> Okay. So.
>> Okay.
Any other questions before
Okay, motion to adjourn.
Moved. Second. All those in favor?
Carried unanimously and thank you
everyone. Have a great summer.
We'll see you in September.
» Mhm.